The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurekids[edit]

Once the misleading edit summaries are sorted through, the article reads like an advertisement. Article claims that Futurekids is "recognized nationally and internationally for school technology solutions that work," but the citation for that "recognition" is self-generated, and was removed from BNet (the claimed source). In short, this is nothing mroe than an advertisement masquerading as an article, and the author has seemingly used some deception in maintaining the masquerade. Justin Eiler (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find Futurekids pages in many languages and countries using Google, but nearly impossible to locate unibased third-party notable coverage. I suspect that an organization this big/widespread might be notable per WP:CORP, but without proper sourcing through reliable sources, and with the persistence of SIWC (talk · contribs) in using non-neutral prose it may be impossible to keep. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a third party writing about Futurekids, and not in anyway related to the company. This is my first attempt at posting on Wikipedia. I have researched articles on other companies and followed the format accepted for them. In actuality, there is promotion of products at a high level on some of the sites I reviewed which have not been challenged. I will remove the offending citation. However, the article was reposted as written due to vandalism of the page with a reloading of an early, incomplete version of the page that was accidentally created before I realized there is no way to actually save the page while working on it. Futurekids is a worldwide supplier of technology training and courses used in many school districts. However, it is a small company and works behind the scenes, thus not attracting the attention of a wide number of independent sources of review. Futurekids works with a number of major technology vendors, as noted in the article. Their role in several major educational efforts are noted within the article and contribute to the overall notability of the company. I am not trying to be difficult, but I am struggling with understanding why this particular company page has been selected for deletion. Thus, I request more specific information on the specific language (other than the above noted citation) that is offensive, and what can be done to change this. SIWC (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SWIC. What you might want to do is create the incomplete article in your user space, say at User:SWIC/Futurekids. That way, you can craft the article, make sure it satisfies notability and does not violate neutral point of view, and you'll have time and space to work on the article. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time studying the policies and felt I had followed them. As a social psychologist, I do know that individual perceptions of events and documents can cover a wide range of viewpoints, with none being totally right or wrong. Hence, the request for more specifics since in my viewpoint it follows the criteria. As noted, the Futurekids page is less promotional than many other company pages I reviewed. Thanks.SIWC (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The goal here is not to challenge legitimate material, but make certain that we properly cite verifiable reliable sources, usually nontrivial unbiased third-party sources which have notability of their own (e.g. Bob's website would not be considered reliable even if it is unbiased). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional thought. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject clearly has enough mention is second party sources to pass WP:COMPANY criteria. I can see no valid reason to suggest deletion or assume bad faith as the nominator has done. --neonwhite user page talk 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Keep in mind that when this was nominated it was singing the praises of the organization more than a Libyan press secretary just before a 1980s Qadaffi speech. No bad faith was presumed at the time of the nomination. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has made accusations of deception which are incivil and inapropriate in a deletion discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this side-conversation needs to continue, then we need to take it to a talk page rather than the AfD. Justin Eiler (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough sources to indicate that it is notable. It needs rather drastic editing though. I've started removing some oft he puffery.DGG (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have established WP:NOTABILITY. --Shark face 217 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.